That money has to be paid, come what may. It has been agreed, and it is owed. If the UK tries to renege on its debts, it will be shut out of all financial markets for good. And probably cut off as well, there is no way anything can get in or out of the UK without crossing EU waters or airspace.

Of course if we crash out no 35billion wings its way to Brussels and French farmers will take a subsidy cut. With yellow vests still on the prowl, revolting French farmers and Germany galloping into recession, the EU will find that singing "All things bright and beautiful" simply will not hack it! Then there are slight problems in Italy, and shares in Deutsche Bank are on a journey to the center of the earth. We really are better off out of the fiasco.

It is true, that in order to prevent catastrophe, Parliament need to pu aside their differences, unite around a temporary leader such as Ken Clarke, and pass legislation. Then we can maybe get the country back on track. If they do not do that, catastrophe looms. In such a case we would indeed be better off with direct rule from Brussels, although I don't think Brussels is set up to do that, sadly.

We had a similar situation in 1688. A despotic monarch had set out to crush all opposition, and had just convened the Bloody Assize. Parliament invited the Dutch in to restore order and put the country back on the right track. Discontent rumbled on for decades, but in hindsight it was clearly the right thing to do.

I am not arguing that Parliament, as a whole, wants a no deal exit. My point is that, as things stand and if no further legislation is passed, on the first of September we will have left the EU without an exit agreement. The law stating this has already been passed. Guess who passed it. Parliament passed it!

Now, if Parliament wants to prevent a no deal exit, Parliament will have to alter the legislation it has already passed!

And these are the people some of you insist know better than us and should be allowed to tell us what is good for us!

Stanron, there is no mandate for a no deal brexit. There is obviously no mandate amongst MPs and the question of no deal has not been put to the electorate. So just who is giving BoJo this mandate? No mandate = unconstitutional and undemocratic as stated. He may be acting with a mandate to leave the EU, but I doubt it anyone believes there is a majority for a no deal brexit anywhere.

Steve Shaw wrote: Well the groundswell is that there is no mandate for no deal and that any enforcement of no deal would be unconstitutional, undemocratic and would render its executor toast. I want him to be toast but I don't want the other bits.

I don't know if the stereotype of the ostrich putting it's head in the sand is really a fact in nature, but your refusal to acknowledge what is actually enshrined in law reminds me of it. No deal does not have to be enforced. It already has been. By Parliament.

Well the groundswell is that there is no mandate for no deal and that any enforcement of no deal would be unconstitutional, undemocratic and would render its executor toast. I want him to be toast but I don't want the other bits.

If dyson ulled his money to singapore I wonder how he is the third highest individual taxpayer in the UK?

His private life is such that his neighbours have to call the police to stop him beating the shit out of his partner Really you must have been told more than the mainstream media, or are you simply making it up as usual. The accusation is libel you realise.

You really do post nonsense. As well as spellcheck perhaps you should invest in fact check.

As Britain stands at present Dying businesses The crazies who backed Britain (Rees Mogg/Dyson immediately ulled their money out Dyson into Singapore, Rees Mogg into European Irland (would you believe!!!) In order to survive, the Tory Party had to bung a terrorist linked party a billion of the taxpayers money So they could survive in parliament they have elected a former foreign secretary who is a racist and whose diplomatic skills caused a woman journalist to e locked away in an Iranian prison, where she appears to be dying of the treatment she is receiving His private life is such that his neighbours have to call the police to stop him beating the shit out of his partner Those who elected him Prime minister refuse to back him and are intending to remove him with a vote of no confidence He is intending to over-ride Parliament if he can’t get his way and is now in the pocket of a disgraced ex politician who got Brexit through with th aid of a faked racist poster showing Britain being invaded by foreigners Major businesses are abandoning Britain y the dozen, the economy is in decline and recession is now a reality And Britain is no nearer leaving Europe than it was after the referendum

Isn’t it a shame they stopped making the carry on films – Carry O Britannia could be an Oscar Winner Jim Carroll

Meanwhile the government is headed by someone who wrote in his Pro-European article that the UK continued presence in the EU would be "a boon for for the world and for Europe" and "there is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms. The membership fee seems rather small for that access. Why are we so determined to turn our back on it"

Would you mind telling our friend that Britain may be part of the EU but that organisation plays no part in the governance of England

Since 1972 A total of 52741 laws have been introduced in the UK as a result of EU legislation.

Laws=Governance. Am I missing something here?

Strange, innit, Jim, that we laud a weirdo Tory such as Hammond for telling it like it truly is. There is no mandate whatsoever for a no-deal brexit no matter how the "will of the people"

Which Hammond would that be? The Hammond that argued that voters weren’t told before the referendum that voting to Leave could mean leaving without a deal. or the Hammond that said " Let’s look for a moment now at the default option – the World Trade Organization rules, which is where we will end up if we leave the EU without a deal agreed. For anyone who wants to ensure a clean break with the EU, the WTO is the only honest model."

I can even link to a Chatham House video of the lying git.(courtesy ofGuido of course)

"Jim, that we laud a weirdo Tory such as Hammond for telling it like it truly is." Tis indeed Would you mind telling our friend that Britain may be part of the EU but that organisation plays no part in the governance of England - trading partners have no say in its governance unless traitors like Johnson allow them to have Patriots - I've shit 'em Jim

Strange, innit, Jim, that we laud a weirdo Tory such as Hammond for telling it like it truly is. There is no mandate whatsoever for a no-deal brexit no matter how the "will of the people" notion is dressed up.

I thought it worthwhile to remind people that Britain is governed by representatives elected to Westminster, not to Brussels,

I think it worthwhile to point out that Parliament is now subordinate to EU legislation and therefore governed by Brussels.

Despite denial, it is their avowed intention to proceed with Federalism Majority voting Control of foreign policy etc etc. Parliament will simply become an anachronistic franking machine.

While Boris(blessed be his name) is following the wishes of the majority He is a staunch supporter of democracy. It is certain member of Parliament aided by a treacherous squeaker defying the electorate.

My apologise to the mods for not heeding their advice to 'ignore the troll' - won't happen again. I thought it worthwhile to remind people that Britain is governed by representatives elected to Westminster, not to Brussels, or for that matter, to Washington or Moscow, especially those intending to be where they are for another month and a half If Britain leavers the EU in October the present members of tye EU will be lining up at the dole queue looking for a job - the only voice Farage and his ilk will have is from the platform of a Tommy Robinson rally Never thought I'd say it but I agree with Philip Hammond when he describes Johnson's taking orders from unelected scum like Farage as treachery The Way things are going, if Johnson gets his way, parliamentary democracy will be a thing of the past and his opponents will be moving into some of the new prisons he's proposing to build Jim Carroll

"... it would be a very great gamble to remain in the EU. I see it as a nascent empire of evil. At it's base is deceit and a contempt of the individual. This is charmingly counterpointed by a clumsy incompetence and what I suspect will turn out to be a rather stupid intransigence."

And you're comparing this unfavourably with our putative major trading partners of the future, the US and China? And don't pretend to think that we won't "lose our sovereignty" in our dealings with them. We'll certainly lose our sovereignty over food standards and the NHS and we'll certainly have to toe the line over Hong Kong and hold our noses as we deal with the most repressive regime on earth. We will be minnows in a sea of sharks. We will do as we're told. Why, we might soon have to ditch the nuclear deal with Iran as a condition for trading with Trump. All this for kicking up a big fuss over the one percent of our GDP and none of our domestic laws that are tied up with the EU (and even that isn't all one-way: ask those stupid farmers who voted leave but who are about to lose their subsidies...), and an immigration policy that has overwhelmingly benefited this country. You're old like me, you have your house and your pensions and your savings and you don't have to find a job, and brexit won't bother you. You can fiddle while the country burns. And you know that, don't you. You'll have to pay a lot more for your veg and wine, though. You'll manage, I suppose.

well some people who voted leave did not envisage a no deal brexit. mean while I feel it is necessary to criticise the EU For signing MERCOSUR AGREEMENT.The EU bangs on about emissions and then signs an agreement with Brazil, a country that apparantly has 23 per cent of the cattle population of the world, second behind India 32 per cent. Ireland has 0.07 per cent. However while i am very critucal of the hypocrisy of the EU , I DO NOT AGREE WITH LEAVING IN A NO DEAL BREXIT

Agreed, Pete. Cameron will forever be known not just as pig sticker but also the man who ran from a fight with the nicotine stained man-frog and then abdicated all responsibility for his failure.I

Stanron, thanks for the civil and honest answer. We may disagree but at least we can discuss. Who will share the responsibility if it does go wrong though? As far as I am concerned the ball is entirely with you - I.E. The leavers. Who else will be to blame for crashing out of the EU? Well, I suppose there is porky prick and the toad... :-)

Brexit has now undermined Parliamentary DEmocracy in Britain Hammond and other leading Tories have accused Johnson oand the Brexiteers of betraying the people by bringing taking up policies from non elected campaigners (like Farage) and are deciding to override Parliament Johnson (in fine Trump style) has accused Hammond of colluding with the EU to stop Brexit The Tory Party seems to have entered into a state of Civil War with each other, leaving Britain ungoverned Up lads and at 'em Jim Carroll

i reckon it is interesting to think that no-one (on here anyway) seems to have changed their mind (in fact i have been introduced to another phrase - along with backstop and proroguing - 'double-down') the nearer we get to halloween the more us remainers get angry and worried and the brexiteers double-down on their unshakable faith in leaving.

no matter what happens i'm angry that we are engaged in this massively expensive and risky nonsense. and all because cameron never had the guts to call out nigel farage for the creepy little fascist that he is.

The EU and the US have a long-running dispute over imports of chlorine-treated poultry, which EU member states have refused to accept since 1997. The feud has resulted in proceedings before the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and remains a major bone of contention in EU-US trade relations.

According to a report from the Adam Smith Institute (which argues in favour of allowing PRTs), “immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”

The US disputes this, says the ban is not based on scientific evidence and little more than wilful protectionism designed to protect EU poultry producers from more competitive imports.

So is it safe?

US regulators are unequivocal: yes, it’s safe. The USDA has approved several antimicrobial rinses for use in poultry processing, including chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate and peroxyacids, and meat treated with such rinses is considered safe for consumers to eat.

And, in fact, their EU colleagues agree. The European food safety regulator EFSA looked at the issue of chlorine treatment and found “chemical substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.”

The Adam Smith Institute says there are good reasons for the UK to scrap EU rules that currently ban chlorine-treated poultry in this country.

In a new briefing paper called Chlorinated chicken - Why You Shouldn’t Give A Cluck, it argues British consumers could enjoy much cheaper poultry if the ban on chlorine treatment were lifted. “US methods produce fresh chicken at 79% of the price of equivalent birds on British supermarket shelves,” it says.

It also points out American consumers eat about 156 million chlorine-treated chickens a week, and are fine, and that the risk associated with chlorine treatment are tiny. “Adults would need to eat 5% of their bodyweight in chlorinated chicken each day to be at risk of ill health from poultry alone,” it says. “Brits would have to eat three entire chlorine-washed chickens every day for an extended period to risk harm.”

And propaganda from: It’s fair to say the British Poultry Council is not at all impressed by all this talk of American chicken imports. In fact, chief executive Richard Griffiths flatly rejects the notion of importing chlorine-washed chickens as part of a makeweight in trade negotiations with the US.

“We are proud to produce wholesome, nutritious and affordable food for the UK population. We also know that British consumers trust nothing other than British chicken,” he says. (and we will make them pay through the nose for it.)

All this information from “The Grocer” no less. No leftie axe to grind with them, just wholesome facts!(Chlorine dipped of course)

Also just under a year ago the EU decided Millions of chickens could soon be sold across the EU without being individually inspected for contamination or signs of disease after being killed, in a move some experts believe will put consumers at increased risk of food poisoning bugs. Campylobacter is Europe’s biggest cause of food poisoning, with up to 9 million cases estimated to occur annually, although most are not reported. Rates of the disease – which can prove fatal – are known to be rising, with high levels found in chicken meat. This would seem a good example of EU joined up thinking.

Is a jug of well chlorinated water required to accompany a meal of chicken in this brave new world of the EU?

Dave the Gnome wrote: If it all goes pear shaped though, will you take responsibility or blame someone else?

That's an interesting question. If it turns out that I was wrong I would admit my mistake but responsibility would have to be shared.

As for gambling, part of my point of view is that it would be a very great gamble to remain in the EU. I see it as a nascent empire of evil. At it's base is deceit and a contempt of the individual. This is charmingly counterpointed by a clumsy incompetence and what I suspect will turn out to be a rather stupid intransigence.

As I have said I expect that in the next five to ten years the EU will collapse under the weight of it's own absurdities. We will be better off out than in if and when that happens.

Thanks Stanron and apologies for not noticing that before. Going back to an earlier post of mine on the brexit 5 thread then, if it all works out fine, I am happy to give credit where it is due. If it all goes pear shaped though, will you take responsibility or blame someone else? Hopefully, we will still be about in 10 years and that should be !omg enough to tell. I seriously hope that you are right because, if not, we are all screwed. Gambling with your own welfare is one thing. Gambling with the economy of 65 million people is another.

From The BBCWhy ban chlorine-washed chicken? Washing chicken in chlorine and other disinfectants to remove harmful bacteria was a practice banned by the European Union (EU) in 1997 over food safety concerns. The ban has stopped virtually all imports of US chicken meat which is generally treated by this process. Although the article goes on to give figures for greater health risks for US chicken, as the EU ban only came in in 1997, it is worth asking whether this was to improve food standards, or to reduce competition.

'Surely the point is not what trade will maintain but how will they replace THAT WHICH WILL BE LOST"

That's right. Trade with the US is utterly dwarfed at present by trade with the EU. Let's suppose that, by some miracle, the backstop is not threatened and the Good Friday Agreement remains secure (impossible with a no-deal, but one can always imagine). It will take decades for the current trade volume and balance between us and the EU to be replicated by any deal between us and the US, and even that is supposing that we'll get a deal at all. Which we certainly won't if the many Irish-supporting democrats in Congress get even the slightest sniff of a threat to peace in Ireland. Which they will.

By the way, the chlorinated chicken issue is nothing to do with whether we are going to be obliged to consume chlorine. It's about lower welfare and hygiene standards in the US which can only be compensated for by harsh post-slaughter disinfecting treatment. I'm no fan of the standards in the EU but be assured that they are a damn sight better than those in the US.

Sorry Stanron, neither you nor anyone of the leave side has ever been able to present a coherent arguement for leaving.

You have stated we will regain our sovereignty which we never lost. You claim we will regain control of our border bust that only relates to Europeans immigration, from other parts of the world we already have full control.

So please tell me how I will be better off.

To date I have experienced only negatives, rise in the cost of my weekly expenses a dramatic fall in the value of the pound. My insurance companies relocating to mainland Europe etc etc.

Chlorination is the mainstay of potable water treatment in the UK. Every time we wash ourselves,our kitchen utensils or vegetables the various items are chlorinated to the tune of about 0.5mg/l. For the average person the only time chlorine becomes a hazard is by misuse of household hypochlorite.

The chlorinated chicken scare always seems a bit overblown to me. In my teens I was a keen swimmer and immersed myself in chlorinated water almost daily most summers and several days a week in winter. Admittedly I never ate myself but any chlorinated water always seemed to wash off.

My post was in response to Steve Shaw's post

Date: 13 Aug 19 - 11:24 AM

saying a deal was unlikely any time soon. Your list of scare stories would therefor be unlikely any time soon as well.

I would prefer leaving without a deal as that is the only way of actually leaving. All this business about stopping us leaving without a deal is really about stopping us leaving full stop (period).

The dynamic of getting a deal or deals after we have left will be different to previous negotiations. The point is that there will be a deal or a number of deals after we leave but we won't always have to be the supplicant. No deal is not no deal for ever.